Point of Law : When two provisions of the same statute provide two separate instances, the law should be interpreted in a harmonious manner so as to give weight to both provisions equally without subjecting one provision either in operative or redundant.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Relevant question crops up for consideration is as to whether a blanket order of stay can be granted by the appellate court when considering an appeal under Section 113 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in the context of Section 107 of the Act?

2. In this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner herein impugns interim order in I.A. No. 1/2022 dated 24.01.2022 in A.S. No. 5/2022, pending before the Additional District Judge-II, Manjeri. The respondents herein are the original petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in Election O.P. No. 3/2021 (wherefrom AS-5/22 arose).

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original petitioner Sri. Krishnanunni and Sri. K.M. Firoz, appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. I would like to refer the parties in this Original Petition as Praveen and Pradeep Sri. Pradeep filed Election O.P. No. 3/2021 before the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Ponnani, challenging election of Sri. Praveen. The learned Munsiff allowed Election O.P. No. 3/2021 and thereby election of Pradeep from ward No. 2 (Kannenkavu) of Nannamukku Grama Panchayat held on 14.12.2020 was declared as void.

5. The above finding was challenged by filing A.S. (Election). No. 5/2022 before the District Court, Manjeri. An interim application was also filed to stay the operation of the order. As per order dated 24.01.2022, the learned District Judge refused to grant blanket order of stay. The learned District Judge permitted Mr. Praveen to continue to discharge the functions as a member of the Panchayat, but with the condition that he would not have any voting right and he should not collect any remuneration for the sitting of the Panchayat meeting or any of its Committees, till the disposal of the stay petition on merits.

6. The above order is under challenge before this Court.

7. While arguing to unsettle the above order, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Krishnanunni relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Kripal Singh MLA vs. Uttam Singh and Another, (1985) 4 SCC 621. The learned Senior Counsel attempted to carve out a difference in the matter of declaration of election as void due to the fault of the candidate and due to the fault of the officials in the election, since in the instant case election was declared void on finding fault on the part of the Returning Officer. The learned counsel would urge that when the election is declared void due to the fault of the candidate, it is different from declaration of election of a candidate on the premise of the fault committed by the Returning Officer in the matter of improper rejection of nomination paper, etc. The learned counsel also placed an order in Civil Appeal No. 6467/2012 in Varkala Kahar vs. Prahladan where the Honourable Supreme Court issued blanket order of stay when the election of Varkala Kahar was declared void by this Court as per the decision of this Court in Prahladan vs. Varkala Kahar, 2012 (4) KLJ 559. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that a blanket order of stay permitting Praveen to continue as the member of the Panchayat in full vigour, till the disposal of the appeal should have been granted by the learned District Judge and therefore the learned District Judge went wrong in granting the impugned order with restrictive rights.

8. Per contra, Sri. K.M. Firoz, who is appearing for the Pradeep highlighted decision reported in Padmakumar vs. Unnikrishnan, 2004 KHC 168 : 2004 (1) KLJ 598 to contend that power of the appellate court to grant stay in election petition filed under Section 113 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in violation of the mandate of Section 107 of the Panchayat Raj Act is not permissible. In the said decision when this Court considered a similar matter, it was held as under:

“S.107 of the Act specifically provides that an order under S.100 or S.101 shall take effect as soon as it is pronounced by the court. Therefore, the moment a order is